Q for you P38J folks

[WaffenVW]

And the most awesome, groundbreaking, devastatingly superior fighter of WWII was a twin! 

[bozon]

Why do people insist to measure a fighter in a duel. This has been proven many times as a folley. A single engine plane is better in a duel. If all you want from your Fighter is to take off, fly a few miles into a scrap and quickly RTB, a one engine Fighter is your cheaper and better solution. This was sufficient for 109 and spits over the canal and for the Russian fighters with their vodka bottle size fuel tanks.

Once range got into the equation, the singles suffered. 109s could not do much beyond the channel. Then it was the spits turn to not reach far enough. The spits were nearly out of work for the 2nd half of the war and were thrown into attack roles for which they are not well suited. The only fighters with the range to do anything meaningful were the 38s, until finally the p51 with DTs arrived. Still the 38 was the most successful land-based Fighter in the PTO mostly thanks to its range.

The nights fighters were entirely dominated by the twins. As Fighter bombers the twins are superior to the singles in almost every way. Generally, the twins are much more versatile and could perform or be easily adjusted to perform a wide array of tasks that singles could not do as well, or at all.

On paper the F4U is a much better Fighter than the F6F. On real carrier decks in the real world, the F6F proved otherwise. There is more than one metric to consider when evaluating which is better and usually a mix of models is better overall than a single model that tries to do everything. An airforce of twin fighters is a foolish idea, and an airforce of singles is limited.

[artik]

Why do people insist to measure a fighter in a duel. This has been proven many times as a folley. A single engine plane is better in a duel. If all you want from your Fighter is to take off, fly a few miles into a scrap and quickly RTB, a one engine Fighter is your cheaper and better solution. This was sufficient for 109 and spits over the canal and for the Russian fighters with their vodka bottle size fuel tanks.

Once range got into the equation, the singles suffered. 109s could not do much beyond the channel. Then it was the spits turn to not reach far enough.

Bozon you taking it to other extreme which ins't right as well.

Unless you are carrier fighter operating in pacific or running strategic deep bombing campaign over seas in Douhet style (that its results are still controversial) you do not really need that long range aircraft.

Neither Russians nor German actually needed long range fighters - most of activity was on short tactical ranges. Only small amount of sorties were long range ones. For example LW hadn't even had strategic bomber force because to be honest it would be time waste - you still couldn't get to factories at Ural Mountains, you couldn't bomb factories in USA, even in Britain it would be virtually impossible due to RAF strength. So LW had good tactical bomber forces, Russians as well.

Russians and German forces operated against tactical target in great efficiency - and it didn't required long range and BTW not high altitude.

Interesting notes regarding what considered best and what needed:

- There was Yak-9D - long range Yak-9 variant at field extra fuel tanks were disabled because there were rarely needed. There were Yak-9DD that had range of ~2,300km - and without external fuel tanks by design to reduce the drag (somewhat between P-38 and P-47 with tanks) but not many of 9DDs were produced due to limited need.
- MiG-3 in 1941 had very good high altitude performance - better than German counterparts. Yet its production stopped because it wasn't needed and all planes were optimized for low altitude performance.

This is exactly the opposite to what was done by USAF. Not because Russians couldn't produce good planes - but quite the opposite - they actually did wonders considering the situation: lack of aluminium, poor production facilities and poorly trained work force.

On paper the F4U is a much better Fighter than the F6F. On real carrier decks in the real world, the F6F proved otherwise. There is more than one metric to consider when evaluating which is better and usually a mix of models is better overall than a single model that tries to do everything. An airforce of twin fighters is a foolish idea, and an airforce of singles is limited.

F4U came too late - it was useless for carriers until Brits sorted it out how to operate them. But heh... Brits operated Seafires - I suggest to read what Eric Brown things of British carrier based planes. (He BTW admires F4Fs for carrier capabilities)

Also at PTO F6F was more than enough against Zeros. At the time F4U arrived Japanese air forces and were virtually none - only Kamikaze could operate with some success.

[WaffenVW]

Artik, the 110 was an invaluable asset for the germans in the med, africa, middle east and russia. The mosquito was also invaluable for the RAF in the long range fighter/bomber role.

This is the kind of job the 110 was designed for. Long range escort. A job no 109 or spitfire could do:

[bozon]

Artik,
Germans complained a lot about the short legs of the 109 during BoB. Later the LW action was almost exclusively defensive, and for that you need interceptors. I do not know why the Russians did not use long range bombers/fighters. It seems that the role of their airforce was mostly to support the ground troops and not to engege in a war of its own. Therefore the ranges were short and singles were sufficient. Besides, the Soviet doctrine seemed to prefer masses of cheap units. On such terms twins bring nothing new to the table.

The F4U first flew in 1940. In went into trials in 1941 before the US even joined the war. The reason it came too late was that Vaught built the best plane to win a dogfight and forgot that it is supposed to operate from carriers. The first production F6F first flew in late 1942, much later than the F4U. It made it to carriers before the F4U and made the latter the second USN Fighter just because Grumann did not build it to be the best plane in a duel, and had their priorities almost reversed of Vaught's. Eric Brown landed a mosquito on a carrier. That still does not make the mossie a good carrier plane. Same goes for the F4U. There are many parameters to consider and context above all. Twin fighters are not for everyone.

[WaffenVW]

With the distinctive 900 liter droptanks (three times as large as the normal german DT) the 110D extended range version was one of the longest ranged twin engined aircraft of the war. Here flying top cover for an axis convoy in the med.

[bozon]

With the distinctive 900 liter droptanks (three times as large as the normal german DT) the 110D extended range version was one of the longest ranged twin engined aircraft of the war. Here flying top cover for an axis convoy in the med.

(Image removed from quote.)

Thanks, I forgot convoy escort as a major role for twin engine fighters, both German and British (whirlwind, beufighter, mossie).

[FLOOB]

Couple of things. Saying that the 110 and the p38 were never purpose built to be a good pure fighter isn't true, that's exactly what they were built for. And it would be pretty dumb to replace single engine fighters with planes that sucked and were more expensive and required twice as many crewmen in the case of the 110, which by early war required single engine escort fighters to protect it. And yeah they were ok as fighterBOMBERS since that's really what they were anyway, bombers. And the argument about long range single engine fighters not existing until late war would be valid, except that it's not true. There were very good long range single engine fighters at the beginning of the war. The B-239 is one example of many. Hell the zero started the war in the pacific and it had longer range than the p51D ever would.

Like I said from the beginning, every major airforce tried to make a twin engine fighter that they thought would be a world beater as an air supremacy fighter. And in the end each one of those twin engine supposed fighters were relegated to a different more suitable role. Sure out of pure necessity some of them were used as long range escorts even though they weren't particularly good at it(p38 eto). But as soon as it was possible they were replaced with something that wasn't a bad idea.

[WaffenVW]

The P-38 was originally designed as a high altitude interceptor. The 110 was not designed as a 'jager' like the 109, but as a 'zerstorer' - a destroyer. A multi-purpose long range fighter bomber.

[WaffenVW]

The P-38 was probably the best overall fighter in the pacific war bar none. That's why the two top scoring U.S. aces flew 38s. That second engine is a life saver when operating over open water. Sounds to me you're just holding on to your preconceptions without any supporting evidence at all.

[WaffenVW]

Just one more picture to give a sense of scale to those massive drop tanks on the 110D. Each carry more than twice the fuel of a P-51's torpedo tanks.

[artik]

...
 I do not know why the Russians did not use long range bombers/fighters. It seems that the role of their airforce was mostly to support the ground troops and not to engege in a war of its own.
...
Besides, the Soviet doctrine seemed to prefer masses of cheap units. On such terms twins bring nothing new to the table.
...

There is no "war of its own"

The reason Russian AF didn't required high altitude capabilities and range is the same reason it didn't required at Middle-East/North Africa.

Air Force operated together with ground forces in offensive/defensive - you can't run an offensive without supply lines of ammunition, fuel and food. Airforce can be very effectively used in interdiction role. Any offensive can be virtually stopped if you have enough air-power and have air-superiority. But air-force does not win wars on its own...

Now clearly twins age great advantage in such interdiction missions, but as air-superiority fighter only P-38 had success that could stand on its own against modern single engine fighters.

...
Besides, the Soviet doctrine seemed to prefer masses of cheap units. On such terms twins bring nothing new to the table.
...

You are missing one very important Soviet versatile twin... Pe-2

It has much more in common with Bf 110, Mosquito, Beaufighter than with other twin bombers. It was fast versatile, highly accurate dive bomber. It used in both land and naval operations - about 11,500 were produced.

It was almost as important as IL-2 in Soviet air force. Also IL-2 operated against targets that were closer to a front line Pe-2 operated into deeper territory and over water.

Look at this thread: http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,374086.msg4983574.html#msg4983574

Note it also operated as night fighter.

[artik]

This is the kind of job the 110 was designed for. Long range escort.

The problem it could not compete with modern light fighters when it got to the target. Spit and 109 were short legged - but many other planes were not.

[WaffenVW]

And just to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt you're completely wrong FLOOB about twins being a bad idea that was replaced as soon as possible, here are some late war (post war) american twins. And they were truly excellent.





And the british made this powerhouse that 'Winkle' Brown said was the best prop fighter he had ever flown.

    "...the next two months of handling and deck landing assessment trials were to be an absolute joy; from the outset the Sea Hornet was a winner!"
    "The view from the cockpit, positioned right forward in the nose beneath a one-piece aft-sliding canopy was truly magnificent. The Sea Hornet was easy to taxi, with powerful brakes... the takeoff using 25 lb (2,053 mm Hg, 51" Hg) boost and flaps at one-third extension was remarkable! The 2,070 hp (1,540 kW) Merlin 130/131 engines fitted to the prototypes were to be derated to 18 lb (1,691 Hg, 37" Hg) boost and 2,030 hp (1,510 kW) as Merlin 133/134s in production Sea Hornets, but takeoff performance was to remain fantastic. Climb with 18 lb boost exceeded 4,000 ft/min (20.32 m/sec)"...
    "In level flight the Sea Hornet's stability about all axes was just satisfactory, characteristic, of course, of a good day interceptor fighter. Its stalling characteristics were innocuous, with a fair amount of elevator buffeting and aileron twitching preceding the actual stall"...
    "For aerobatics the Sea Hornet was absolute bliss. The excess of power was such that manoeuvres in the vertical plane can only be described as rocket like. Even with one propeller feathered the Hornet could loop with the best single-engine fighter, and its aerodynamic cleanliness was such that I delighted in its demonstration by diving with both engines at full bore and feathering both propellers before pulling up into a loop!"

[FLOOB]

No the p38 was demonstrably not the best fighter of the pacific. The 110 was not designed to be a multi-role fighterbomber. Destroyer is a name they came up for the plane. It was designed as an escort fighter, it failed at that and throughout it's service the luftwaffe tried to find a suitable role for it and it's descendants (210, 410). From fighter, to interceptor to maritime patrol to interceptor then radar platform and finally night interceptor. It's most successful role was as interceptor against unescorted bombers, something even the ju88 could do. When escorts showed up on the scene things changed drastically for the 110s though. Galland's view, correct imo, was that the p38 was the american attempt at an improved 110 which he viewed as a failure and a waste. Escort p38s in eto were safer prey than the bombers, indeed american p38 pilots felt that the luftwaffe fighters were targeting the p38s rather than the bombers.